Peter Oskolkov <posk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:08 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] >> Documentation patches can help to guide that discussion; they also need >> to be reviewed as well. So yes, I think they should be present from the >> beginning. But then, that's the position I'm supposed to take :) This >> is a big change to the kernel's system-call API, I don't think that >> there can be a proper discussion of that without a description of what >> you're trying to do. > > Hi Jon, > > There are doc comments in patches 2 and 7 in umcg.c documenting the > new syscalls. That said, I'll prepare a separate doc patch - I guess > I'll add Documentation/scheduler/umcg.rst, unless you tell me there is > a better place to do that. ETA mid-to-late next week. Yes, I saw those; they are a bit terse at best. What are the "worker states"? What's a "UMCG group"? Yes, all this can be worked out by pounding one's head against the code for long enough, but you're asking a fair amount of your reviewers. A good overall description would be nice, perhaps for the userspace-api book. But *somebody* is also going to have to write real man pages for all these system calls; if you provided those, the result should be a good description of how you expect this subsystem to work. Thanks, jon
